ArtSpots Forum Topic - Sullivant to Disney

Kigs

Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:33:51 -0000

I think the vote might actually lean towards "more economical/profitable."

I side with Higgens on this one. It's an unfortunate fact, but budgets often ditate business decisions. As a result, they dictate creative decisions attached to these business decisions. American animation has always prefered high-frame rates with simple character models to the japanese model of low-frame rates with more intricate characters. This, combined with a modern business model, tends to lead to simpler character designs. Imagine that a studio is trying to decide between funding two series. They both have a strong concept, appeal to a broad market, and it is estimated that they could both be profitable. If one will cost less to produce, the studio will pick it nearly every time.

Radioactive Chicken

Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:13:09 -0000

Thornwolf said: I was really hoping that somewhere in that article John K. would step away from being harsh and "edgy" for two seconds and explain his views a bit more. I notice a lot of his articles contain "this is wrong! This is wrong!" but doesn't say why.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way. I'm all for being shown a better way to draw but to my uneducated eye I just can't see what he's saying in some of his entries. Sometimes we need the obvious pointed out to us. ;) I also find it a bit hard to listen to his point of view about ugly character design when to me his drawings are fugly but you know that's just my personal preference. He might not like TLK style but it's hugely popular as can be seen by the many young artists that copy the style. He probably hates the Sonic the Hedgehog design as well but that type of fan art flooded the galleries a few years back. Just because something isn't to his artistic eye's liking doesn't mean people won't enjoy it's design however flawed it might be. I did see his point when he was talking about the saturated colour pallets used in modern cartoons and films a few entries back. At the time I read the article I felt there was room for both but then I saw the advert for the newly released Fox and the Hound and Fox and the Hound 2 DVDs and noticed the difference between the more realistic colours in the original and the day glow green and "ooo, look pretty pink sky reflected in the water" in the sequel I could totally see how the original is more appealing visually.

John "The Gneech" Robey

Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:22:57 -0000

I don't see TLK's "style" being bland at all; I find it (and the Don Bluth style that predated it) very appealing and always have. The Kricfalusi article suffers from the all-too-common "what I like = objectively good" fallacy, it seems to me. -The Gneech

SaiTenyo

Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:39:10 -0000

Nocte said: He has some good points, but he seems to have a very strong preference for slapstick humor style characters. I don't think Tex Avery's slap-happy lion would make a good Mufasa, regardless how fun and original its design is. Also, Disney's animators did study real lions. I don't know where he got the idea that they skipped this and simply copied someone else's already watered-down style.

Quoted for truth. TLK animators and character designers brought real lions into the studio and went to the zoo...those were not just characters drawn from other characters. It's all a matter of taste, mostly, but personally, I've never liked the Ren & Stimpy style of characters. And I consider the claims he's making to be somewhat hypocritical. I think the TLK-style lions more closely resemble real lions whereas the slap-stick style is more removed from reality, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but different styles work for different story genres. And the slap-stick style is far from new and unique either. It's a more simplified/animated version of the classic grotesque style made popular by such artists as Hieronymus Bosch or DaVinci. So it's a little arrogant and hypocritical for him to claim that the stuff he does is somehow better because it's less "rehashed." If anything, it seems it's simply become popular these days to criticize Disney animation as something childish and unappealing. If you like Disney cartoons, you're part of the unoriginal collective, supposedly...although with all "rebellious" movements in taste, I daresay it's more "following the masses" these days to be one of the "Disney criticizers." Yes, Disney style, especially TLK style, has become somewhat of a plague amongst young artists who think they can draw that and only that and be successful (many of us have been there, myself included) but acknowledging that it IS indeed good cartooning for the purpose that it's intended to serve shouldn't be as much of an issue as it seems to be these days.

Thornwolf

Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:27:24 -0000

I was really hoping that somewhere in that article John K. would step away from being harsh and "edgy" for two seconds and explain his views a bit more. I notice a lot of his articles contain "this is wrong! This is wrong!" but doesn't say why. I'm also surprised that he didn't find the connection between Madagascar's lion to the Little Golden Books "Tawny Scrawny Lion". I know he's familiar with Little Golden Books, since he did a whole article on it in his tutorials linked on Wiki. I mean see for yourself: http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com/images/Records%20Page/lgbr-tawny.JPG http://www.booksamillion.com/bam/covers/0/37/582/838/0375828389.jpg But that said I know how hard it is to get away from the TLK influence. I mean, as supposedly "bad" as that art is, they used real lions as models and wildly exaggerated some features (I don't think I've seen any lion with such a perfectly combed hairstyle!) and based on that people think that's how real lions look. I think a challenge for artists each week or each month (not unlike the Thunder Dome on CA.org) for folks to draw X species in a different style is a good idea.

Higgins Dragon

Sat, 24 Feb 2007 02:34:55 -0000

oCe said:
Vizon said: I can't decide whether it's creative or lazy yet. But at least it's different.
My vote is for "lazy." But considering an animators' job is extremely painstaking to begin with, can't say I blame them.

I think the vote might actually lean towards "more economical/profitable." I know a lot of animators who love to do fluid animation and really cool stuff. Thing is, that takes longer/more effort and thus costs more. Having heavily stylized Odd Parents/Dexter's Lab animation is a throwback to the Hanna-Barbara cartoons of limited animation, it just looks sharper. I like Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, and while the designs are very 'graphic,' the animation is pretty decent in spots. Then again, it's done in Flash where you can take a lot of cheap shortcuts vs. drawing every other frame. It is also in part why shows like Invader Zim (which had a huge per-episode cost) are more likely to get nailed first before shows like Odd Parents. (Although there were other issues with Zim, it was by far one of their most expensive to produce series to date.) Edit: "They" being Nickelodeon/Viacom. The ad revenue for the half hour slot is the same, so from a cold-hard numbers perspective, limited animation brings in more money. :P

oCe

Sat, 24 Feb 2007 01:52:57 -0000

Vizon said: I can't decide whether it's creative or lazy yet. But at least it's different.

My vote is for "lazy." But considering an animators' job is extremely painstaking to begin with, can't say I blame them.

Vizon

Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:00:04 -0000

Xazy said: shortcuts taken at every opportunity, and basically just bad all-around, visually.

Except of course for Hayao Miyazaki's work. And Ghost in the shell has some pretty impressive cityscapes. There is so much detail and beauty put into the environments of these examples. And the boar god in Princess Mononoke was just cool. But yeah, for the most part, Anime is the new Hanna-Barbera. And then there's that style that's become ever so popular with the super-thick linework like the Odd Parents and Dexter's Laboratory and Powerpuff Girls. I can't decide whether it's creative or lazy yet. But at least it's different.

--

Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:19:25 -0000

Vizon said: To each his own I suppose. But I can definitely see how a predetermined "look" has permeated all of Disney's works. I remember when the Little Mermaid came out my family was talking about how computer-manufactured it looked. And truly, if you compare later cartoons to the old cartoons like Aristocats and the Rescuers - there's a vast chasm of difference between the scratchy sketchy wrinkley animation in the older ones (love that old man in Aristocats!) and the perfectly clean and established characters in more recent cartoons that are hardly dynamic. The old cartoons are so fun and interesting to watch - particularly Medusa, Horace and Jasper and Cruella and even the goose in Aristocats is just plain silly and fun to watch his expressions - so masterfully rendered. Each frame. No shortcuts.

And you've discovered the secret to the American animator's ill-feelings towards anime (that is, specifically Japanese anime). Hell, I like anime in general, but most of the newer series are computer animated, shortcuts taken at every opportunity, and basically just bad all-around, visually. I actually prefer watching JPEG-compressed versions on my computer because the perfectly clean, smooth artwork I get on the TV screen just makes me twitch. and of course, the statement about anime stylization doesn't even need to be made...

Vizon

Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:14:14 -0000

Dinogrrl said: And see, I couldn't stand those movies at all. ;}

=O No way! Emperor's New Groove was pretty much the only thing that kept me from completely despising Disney in it's most recent years. It was actually creative and funny. No...hilarious is the word. :) And very quotable. To each his own I suppose. But I can definitely see how a predetermined "look" has permeated all of Disney's works. I remember when the Little Mermaid came out my family was talking about how computer-manufactured it looked. And truly, if you compare later cartoons to the old cartoons like Aristocats and the Rescuers - there's a vast chasm of difference between the scratchy sketchy wrinkley animation in the older ones (love that old man in Aristocats!) and the perfectly clean and established characters in more recent cartoons that are hardly dynamic. The old cartoons are so fun and interesting to watch - particularly Medusa, Horace and Jasper and Cruella and even the goose in Aristocats is just plain silly and fun to watch his expressions - so masterfully rendered. Each frame. No shortcuts.

Dinogrrl

Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:15:38 -0000

Scott Ruggels said:Classic Disney Studios aren't "Slapstick", but the ones that are havebeen the best recent workls that Disney has done, such as Lilo & Stitch, and the Emperor's New Groove.

And see, I couldn't stand those movies at all. ;}

Scott Ruggels

Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:03:03 -0000

Well you could put that together that the bland formula stories should then demand bland formula designs. So, you are saying you like bland designs? :-) Classic Disney Studios aren't "Slapstick", but the ones that are havebeen the best recent workls that Disney has done, such as Lilo & Stitch, and the Emperor's New Groove. If you look at the Warner Brother's output at the time, Bugs Bunny's design remaind fairly consistent, but the designs of Bug's Non-recurring antagonists were all over the board. The thing is is that the fundamental issue is the repetative gopying of a particular style, especially without reference to the original subjject being "stylized" for animation is bad. Scott

Cheddarness8

Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:05:08 -0000

I just don't understand why he feels so strongly that the lions from "The Lion King," Shere Khan, and other cats from Disney's features look so horrible/unoriginal. Even though the style the Disney studio uses in their 2-D animations is a little bland, I find the character design suiting for the purpose of the stories that Disney tells. Classic Disney movies aren't heavy slap-stick comedies like the cartoons of Tex Avery and others. I think the muted character design helps the story flow well, and it keeps to the style that Disney began in the 60's and 70's, which is what made it Disney. If they went to some radically new style suddenly, it would be like an artist putting on a show composed entirely of black and white still-life photographs, and putting in a sculpture of a penguin randomly along one wall. I don't think the public would react well to major change in the Disney style, and the company would lose money. I think all of us here know Dinsey's in it for the $$$$ a lot of the time. Besides, Disney's got Pixar now to do all the creative work for them, don't they? ~_^

Scott Ruggels

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:20:21 -0000

Exactly. I took John K.'s point to mean that rather than following the same design year after year, Artists should come up with their own style, derived from observation of the real animal, modified by the medium. When John K. says an "Interesting" drawing, yes his preference is for wild exxageration, and humor, but it shows how there can be room for more designs, in animation than the same rote construction methods, the "Cal Arts Style" that currently exist. For a while his collumns about animation and animation production were the only reason to read "Animation Magazine", Now it's just a marketing rag for suits. Scott

Higgins Dragon

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:05:01 -0000

Rick Griffin said: Okay, I was kind of waiting to reply, but just real quick: does he really think that the old style was more like a lion? Or that the artists needed to come up with their own style and screw the studio? Or that artists should work in a vaccuum and should not be influenced by other artists? Or that even a hint of realism in cartooning is the death of it?

John K. is one of those people who is very opinionated, very abrasive, but makes some good points even if he doesn't explain them well. :) He does have an obvious bias towards very cartoony/exaggerated characters, ala Tex Avery and Bob Clampett. I think what he was getting at in general though was that artists, (probably more studio execs, but I'll say artists) should allow themselves more freedom in creating designs and rely more on personal observation. Influence is good (Heck, John K. is obviously influenced by a lot of the old cartoon shorts), but it seems he was just railing against the homogeneity of the modern Disney style. Which, except for an exception here and there, has been pretty much unchanged for about 60 years. An example closer to the fandom, a lot of people like the "Lion King style." I like it, admittedly. But, a lot of people draw almost exclusively in it, and they really ought to branch out for instance. Experiment a little more.

Rick Griffin

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:05:13 -0000

Okay, I was kind of waiting to reply, but just real quick: does he really think that the old style was more like a lion? Or that the artists needed to come up with their own style and screw the studio? Or that artists should work in a vaccuum and should not be influenced by other artists? Or that even a hint of realism in cartooning is the death of it?

Dinogrrl

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:51:50 -0000

Maybe I just fail as an art critic and have become one of the mindless mass, but I actually prefer the later characters he shows ('later' refering to date created, not position in the post) to the earlier ones and the sketchy designs. I just don't like them. I see the similarities, yes, but I guess I don't see his point. The whole post seems kinda abstract to me. Maybe it just comes down to personal taste, I dunno.

Nocte

Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:44:03 -0000

He has some good points, but he seems to have a very strong preference for slapstick humor style characters. I don't think Tex Avery's slap-happy lion would make a good Mufasa, regardless how fun and original its design is. Also, Disney's animators did study real lions. I don't know where he got the idea that they skipped this and simply copied someone else's already watered-down style.

Aurinona said:That would be great! Now that it's getting above freezing again, I really ought to get out to the zoo with a sketchbook (especially since the zoo in this town is free!) and something like that might be the kick in the pants I need to actually go.

Agreed! I've never actually sat down with a sketchbook in a zoo, can you believe it? I really need that kick, too.

Scott Ruggels

Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:52:57 -0000

That is an impressive amount of evidence, upo the "copy of a copy" you see. What's even more telling is that in a similar article in a print magazine, they printed cartoons from late in T.S. Sullivant's career. He simplified his 19th century pen and ink style to a Brush inked, and abstracted style, where he reduced the caricature to it's basic lines and volumes, with nearly no texture, and presaged 1940's animation styles by 15-20 years. You look at the last pieces he did and you can see the wholesale rippage that later cartoons did of his designs. But Copy of a Copy shows up EVERYWHERE. Superheroes, Television Drama (Imitation is the sincerest form of television--Mighty Mouse). The best work is done from first hand observation and an understanding of what you are looking at. Scott

Aurinona

Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:16:33 -0000

Higgins Dragon said: Hm, while not contests, it might be nice to have artistic challenges on this site. Something like, "Find an animal and pick your favorite feature, emphasize it in a drawing." or "Come up with three totally different ways to draw X animal." Something that would require research, a trip or two to a zoo, and an artistic leap of faith. :)

That would be great! Now that it's getting above freezing again, I really ought to get out to the zoo with a sketchbook (especially since the zoo in this town is free!) and something like that might be the kick in the pants I need to actually go.